To assess the success rates of off-label uses of ceftaroline for infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and evaluate emerging ceftaroline resistance.
Data Sources
We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, with the search term “Ceftaroline.” Articles were restricted to the English language and year of publication (January 1, 2009-January 31, 2022).
Study Selection and Data Extraction
Clinical trials, observational studies, and case reports that reported efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, use in MRSA infections other than acute bacterial skin infection and community-acquired pneumonia, and ceftaroline resistance were selected.
Data Synthesis
The search pooled 103 publications and all abstracts were reviewed. Forty-six articles that reported efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, or off-label use in multiple patients and 7 articles on ceftaroline resistance are used in this review. Ceftaroline has been approved for treatment of acute skin/soft tissue infection and community-acquired pneumonia. Ceftaroline’s efficacy in off-label infections ranged from 66.7% to 87.3% depending on the types of infection. There were 14 documented cases of ceftaroline resistance associated with PBP2a changes.
Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical practice
Case series and observational studies have documented success with ceftaroline alone or in combination with vancomycin or daptomycin for treatment of MRSA bone and joint, endovascular, diabetic foot infections, and bacteremia from other causes.
Conclusion
Despite the lack of randomized controlled trials, ceftaroline is used as salvage therapy for different MRSA infections. The data from case series and observational studies are promising but ceftaroline should be used judiciously as ceftaroline-resistant MRSA begin to emerge.
World Health Organization. Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) report: 2021. World Health Organization. Accessed February 23, 2022. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240027336.
PastagiaMKleinmanLCLacerda de la CruzEGJenkinsSG.Predicting risk for death from MRSA bacteremia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(7):1072-1080.
4.
DelaneyJASchneider-LindnerVBrassardPSuissaS.Mortality after infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) diagnosed in the community. BMC Med. 2008;6:2.
5.
LiuCBayerACosgroveSE, et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(3):e18-e55.
Villegas-EstradaALeeMHesekDVakulenkoSBMobasheryS.Co-opting the cell wall in fighting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: potent inhibition of PBP 2a by two anti-MRSA beta-lactam antibiotics. J Am Chem Soc. 2008;130(29):9212-9213.
8.
KanafaniZACoreyGR.Ceftaroline: a cephalosporin with expanded Gram-positive activity. Future Microbiol. 2009;4(1):25-33.
9.
FudaCCFisherJFMobasheryS.Beta-lactam resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: the adaptive resistance of a plastic genome. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2005;62(22):2617-2633.
10.
WhiteBPBarberKEStoverKR.Ceftaroline for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(4):201-208.
11.
CosimiRABeikNKubiakDWJohnsonJA.Ceftaroline for severe methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: a systematic review. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017;4(2):ofx084.
12.
PaniAColomboFAgnelliF, et al. Off-label use of ceftaroline fosamil: a systematic review. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2019;54(5):562-571.
13.
KarlowskyJABiedenbachDJBouchillonSKIaconisJPReisznerESahmDF.In vitro activity of ceftaroline against bacterial pathogens isolated from skin and soft tissue infections in Europe, Russia and Turkey in 2012: results from the Assessing Worldwide Antimicrobial Resistance Evaluation (AWARE) surveillance programme. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(1):162-169.
14.
CoreyGRWilcoxMTalbotGH, et al. Integrated analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ceftaroline versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in complicated skin and skin-structure infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(6):641-650.
15.
CoreyGRWilcoxMHTalbotGHThyeDFriedlandDBaculikT.CANVAS 1: the first Phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(suppl 4):iv41-51.
16.
WilcoxMHCoreyGRTalbotGHThyeDFriedlandDBaculikT.CANVAS 2: the second Phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(suppl 4):iv53-iv65.
17.
FriedlandHDO’NealTBiekD, et al. CANVAS 1 and 2: analysis of clinical response at day 3 in two phase 3 trials of ceftaroline fosamil versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(5):2231-2236.
18.
KorczowskiBAntadzeTGiorgobianiM, et al. A multicenter, randomized, observer-blinded, active-controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ceftaroline versus comparator in pediatric patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2016;35(8):e239-47.
19.
FileTMJrLowDEEckburgPB, et al. FOCUS 1: a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, Phase III trial of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(suppl 3):iii19-iii32.
20.
LowDEFilleTMJrEckburgPB, et al. FOCUS 2: a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, Phase III trial of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(suppl 3):iii33-iii44.
21.
FileTMJrLowDEEckburgPB, et al. Integrated analysis of FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2: Randomized, doubled-blinded, multicenter Phase 3 trials of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(12):1395-1405.
22.
CannavinoCRNemethAKorczowskiB, et al. A randomized, prospective study of pediatric patients with community-acquired pneumonia treated with ceftaroline versus ceftriaxone. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2016;35(7):752-759.
23.
LodiseTPAnzuetoARWeberDJ, et al. Assessment of time to clinical response, a proxy for discharge readiness, among hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia who received either ceftaroline fosamil or ceftriaxone in two phase III FOCUS trials. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(2):1119-1126.
24.
ZhongNSSunTZhuoC, et al. Ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of Asian patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority with nested superiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15(2):161-171.
25.
WeissKLowDECortesL, et al. Clinical characteristics at initial presentation and impact of dual therapy on the outcome of bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia in adults. Can Respir J. 2004;11(8):589-593.
26.
FineMJSmithMACarsonCA, et al. Prognosis and outcomes of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1996;275(2):134-141.
27.
JandourekASmithALlorensLThyeDAEckburgPBFriedlandHD.Efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil for bacteremia associated with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Hosp Pract. 2014;42(1):75-78.
28.
WatererGWSomesGWWunderinkRG.Monotherapy may be suboptimal for severe bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(15):1837-1842.
29.
MartinezJAHorcajadaJPAlmelaM, et al. Addition of a macrolide to a beta-lactam-based empirical antibiotic regimen is associated with lower in-hospital mortality for patients with bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36(4):389-395.
30.
BassettiMRussoACillonizC, et al. Ceftaroline for severe community-acquired pneumonia: a real-world two-centre experience in Italy and Spain. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;55(4):105921.
31.
CorradoML.Integrated safety summary of CANVAS 1 and 2 trials: phase III, randomized, double-blind studies evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(suppl 4):iv67-iv71.
32.
RankDRFriedlandHDLaudanoJB.Integrated safety summary of FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2 trials: phase III randomized, double-blind studies evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(suppl 3):iii53-iii59.
33.
JansenJWMoensterRP.Rate and incidence of adverse reactions associated with ceftaroline exposure: importance of cutaneous manifestations. Ann Pharmacother. 2018;52(3):235-239.
34.
BlumenthalKGKuhlenJLJrWeilAA, et al. adverse drug reactions associated with ceftaroline use: a 2-center retrospective cohort. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2016;4(4):740-746.
35.
PolenakovikHMPleimanCM.Ceftaroline for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: case series and review of the literature. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2013;42(5):450-455.
36.
LalikianKParsianiRWonRChangETurnerRB.Ceftaroline for the treatment of osteomyelitis caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a case series. J Chemother. 2018;30(2):124-128.
37.
MalandainDDinhAFerryT, et al. Salvage therapy for complex bone and joint infections with ceftaroline: a multicentre, observational study. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017;50(2):277-280.
38.
BhowmickTLiuCImpBSharmaRBoruchoffSE.Ceftaroline as salvage therapy for complicated MRSA bacteremia: case series and analysis. Infection. 2019;47(4):629-635.
39.
WatkinsRRYendewaGBurdetteSD, et al. DISC: describing infections of the spine treated with ceftaroline. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2018;13:146-151.
40.
CasapaoAMDavisSLBarrVO, et al. Large retrospective evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of ceftaroline fosamil therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(5):2541-2546.
41.
PaladinoJAJacobsDMShieldsRK, et al. Use of ceftaroline after glycopeptide failure to eradicate meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia with elevated vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2014;44(6):557-563.
42.
SakoulasGMoisePACasapaoAM, et al. Antimicrobial salvage therapy for persistent staphylococcal bacteremia using daptomycin plus ceftaroline. Clin Ther. 2014;36(10):1317-1333.
43.
GritsenkoDFedorenkoMRuheJJAltshulerJ.Combination therapy with vancomycin and ceftaroline for refractory methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a case series. Clin Ther. 2017;39(1):212-218.
44.
HoTTCadenaJChildsLMGonzalez-VelezMLewisJSII. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia and endocarditis treated with ceftaroline salvage therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(5):1267-1270.
45.
TattevinPBoutoilleDVitratV, et al. Salvage treatment of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal endocarditis with ceftaroline: a multicentre observational study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(7):2010-2013.
46.
VardakasKZKontopidisIGkegkesIDRafailidisPIFalagasME.Incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of patients with bone and joint infections due to community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a systematic review. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;32(6):711-721.
47.
FabreVFerradaMBuckelWRAvdicECosgroveSE.Ceftaroline in combination with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for salvage therapy of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2014;1(2):ofu046.
48.
JohnsonTMMolinaKCMillerMAKiserTHHuangMMuellerSW.Combination ceftaroline and daptomycin salvage therapy for complicated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia compared with standard of care. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2021;57(4):106310.
49.
ArshadSHuangVHartmanPPerriMBMorenoDZervosMJ.Ceftaroline fosamil monotherapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a comparative clinical outcomes study. Int J Infect Dis. 2017;57:27-31.
50.
GeriakMHaddadFRizviK, et al. Clinical data on daptomycin plus ceftaroline versus standard of care monotherapy in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(5). Accessed February 23, 2022. doi:10.1128/AAC.02483-18.
51.
Cortes-PenfieldNOliverNTHunterARodriguez-BarradasM.Daptomycin and combination daptomycin-ceftaroline as salvage therapy for persistent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Infect Dis (Lond). 2018;50(8):643-647.
52.
LipskyBACannonCMRamaniA, et al. Ceftaroline fosamil for treatment of diabetic foot infections: the CAPTURE study experience. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2015;31(4):395-401.
53.
EsquivelMDMonogueMLSmithGSFinkleaJDSandersJM.Ceftaroline versus vancomycin for treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis in adults. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2021;28:67-70.
54.
RiccobeneTJakateARankD.A series of pharmacokinetic studies of ceftaroline fosamil in select populations: normal subjects, healthy elderly subjects, and subjects with renal impairment or end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis. J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;54(7):742-752.
BhavnaniSMHammelJPVan WartSA, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis for efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(1):372-380.
57.
DrydenMZhangYWilsonDIaconisJPGonzalezJ.A Phase III, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial of ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 8 h versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infection with systemic inflammatory response or underlying comorbidities. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(12):3575-3584.
58.
ChengKPypstraRYanJLHammondJ.Summary of the safety and tolerability of two treatment regimens of ceftaroline fosamil: 600 mg every 8 h versus 600 mg every 12 h. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(4):1086-1091.
59.
AutryEBRybakJMLeungNR, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses of ceftaroline in adults with cystic fibrosis. Pharmacotherapy. 2016;36(1):13-18.
60.
BaddourLMWilsonWRBayerAS, et al. Infective endocarditis in adults: diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications: a scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;132(15):1435-1486.
61.
WerthBJSteedMEKaatzGWRybakMJ.Evaluation of ceftaroline activity against heteroresistant vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-intermediate methicillin-resistant S. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(6):2664-2668.
62.
BarberKEIrelandCEBukavynNRybakMJ.Observation of “seesaw effect” with vancomycin, teicoplanin, daptomycin and ceftaroline in 150 unique MRSA strains. Infect Dis Ther. 2014;3(1):35-43.
63.
DilworthTJIbrahimOHallPSliwinskiJWalravenCMercierRC.beta-Lactams enhance vancomycin activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia compared to vancomycin alone. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(1):102-109.
64.
DavisJSSudAO’SullivanMVN, et al. Combination of vancomycin and beta-lactam therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a pilot multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(2):173-180.
65.
TongSYCLyeDCYahavD, et al. Effect of vancomycin or daptomycin with vs without an antistaphylococcal beta-lactam on mortality, bacteremia, relapse, or treatment failure in patients with MRSA bacteremia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;323(6):527-537.
66.
WerthBJSakoulasGRoseWEPoglianoJTewheyRRybakMJ.Ceftaroline increases membrane binding and enhances the activity of daptomycin against daptomycin-nonsusceptible vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus in a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(1):66-73.
67.
BarberKERybakMJSakoulasG.Vancomycin plus ceftaroline shows potent in vitro synergy and was successfully utilized to clear persistent daptomycin-non-susceptible MRSA bacteraemia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70(1):311-313.
CannavinoCRMendesRESaderHS, et al. Evolution of ceftaroline-resistant MRSA in a child with cystic fibrosis following repeated antibiotic exposure. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2016;35(7):813-815.
70.
SanchezEHMendesRESaderHSAllisonGM.In vivo emergence of ceftaroline resistance during therapy for MRSA vertebral osteomyelitis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(6):1736-1738.
71.
LongSWOlsenRJMehtaSC, et al. PBP2a mutations causing high-level Ceftaroline resistance in clinical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(11):6668-6674.
72.
FergusonCLCowartMCJordan-VillegasALahamF.High-level ceftaroline resistance in a paediatric patient with invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection without previous ceftaroline exposure. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2021;46(2):524-527.
73.
NigoMDiazLCarvajalLP, et al. Ceftaroline-resistant, daptomycin-tolerant, and heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus causing infective endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(3):e01235-16.
74.
MendesRETsakrisASaderHS, et al. Characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus displaying increased MICs of ceftaroline. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(6):1321-1324.
75.
JonesRNMendesRESaderHS.Ceftaroline activity against pathogens associated with complicated skin and skin structure infections: results from an international surveillance study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(suppl 4):iv17- iv31.
76.
AlmRAMcLaughlinREKosVNSaderHSIaconisJPLahiriSD.Analysis of Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates with reduced susceptibility to ceftaroline: an epidemiological and structural perspective. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(8):2065-2075.
77.
ClarkCMcGheePAppelbaumPCKosowska-ShickK.Multistep resistance development studies of ceftaroline in gram-positive and -negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(5):2344-2351.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
